2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion added the Plaintiff’s assertion that “The Plaintiff sought the return of shares in the name of each Defendant against the Defendants on the grounds that “Defendant B, 19,360 shares of this case, and 11,440 shares of this case were each nominal trust, and thereafter the said title trust was terminated,” and that “The Plaintiff changed the name of the shares to the name of the Defendants designated by the said G upon the request of G’s wire, but the Plaintiff did not receive any compensation from G, and there was no transportation revenue to be settled from G, so the Plaintiff still is a beneficial owner of the instant shares, and the Defendants are obligated to return the shares of this case to the Plaintiff, a beneficial owner.”

B. The reasoning for this court’s explanation on the claim for termination of title trust with the Defendants is as stated in the third or fourth or eighteenth of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

C. We examine the determination as to the assertion added by this court. Even if the Plaintiff did not receive any consideration from G or the Defendants while changing the name of the shareholder in the name of the Defendants at the request of G around 2014, as alleged by the Plaintiff, even though the Plaintiff and G agreed to pay a certain amount of consideration in relation to the transfer of the shares, the Plaintiff and G delayed the performance of the obligation to pay such consideration.

In the absence of any assertion or proof as to the extinguishment of the legal relationship that caused the change of the name of shares, the Plaintiff submitted to the contrary.